Ariel Scolnicov wrote:
>
> Functional languages that do this are usually lazy
Yes, that's what I meant.
> That means that when you create
> the structure the `foo' field stores a closure which evaluates to the
> desired value. If the field is never accessed, the closure is never
> evaluated
"David L. Nicol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> John Porter wrote:
> >
> > we should also support recursive data structures,
> > as in some functional languages. E.g. (pseudocode):
> >
> > define foo as {
> > short a;
> > foo b; # exists at first only
John Porter wrote:
>
> we should also support recursive data structures,
> as in some functional languages. E.g. (pseudocode):
>
> define foo as {
> short a;
> foo b; # exists at first only "in potential".
> long c;
> };
>
h
Chaim Frenkel wrote:
>
> We should be able to represent
> any packed structure. We should be able to handle anything that an
> pack/unpack format can currently handle.
> ...
> The raw structures could be passed between perl and the XS unchanged.
>
> the COBOL redefines capabilities.
> ...a met
This is a bit limiting.
I'd offer a more flexible approach. We should be able to represent
any packed structure. We should be able to handle anything that an
pack/unpack format can currently handle. Except that the data does
not have to be moved out into an array/hash.
This might fit in with t
This and other RFCs are available on the web at
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
=head1 TITLE
types and structures
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: David Nicol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 17 Aug 2000
Version: 1
Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Number: 122
=head1 ABSTRACT
We adopt C base types, a
